Sri. Chirag Mehta

Page 1 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.1523 OF 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Keesara, Rachakonda. ….Complainant. A N D

1. Seeram Shetty Saikiran, S/o Rajender, aged 21 years, Occ; DTDC Courier Boy, R/o.Near Community Hall, R.L. Nagar, Rampally village, Keesara mandal, N/o.Ramakrishnapuram village, Mandamarri Mandal, Mancherial District.

2. Namcherla Karthik Reddy, S/o.Late Narsimha Reddy, aged 21 years, Occ; Engineering IInd year student, R/o.R.L.Nagar, Rampally village, Keesara Mandal, N/o. ThirumalapuramvillageandMandal, Mahaboobnagar, District.

3. Chevuri Karunaka Reddy, S/o.Ramana Reddy, aged 22 years, Occ; Private Employee, R/o.Plot No. 15-A, Sri Ganesh Nagar, RL Nagar, Rampaly village, Keesara mandal, N/o. Kottur village, Khammam Mandal and District. ….Accused

This case came before me on 11.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Immanual, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

.

Page 2 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, P.S.Keesara has filed Charge Sheet in

Crime No.51 of 2018 against the above named accused person for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

2.a.Accused No.1 to 3 are addicted to bad vices and used to smoke

Ganja by filling the same in Cigarrettes and used to purchase Ganja from unknown persons at Dhoolpet and also used sell some Ganja to the needy people. Accordingly, on 16.02.2018, accused No.1 to 3 went to Dhoolpet and purchased 550 grams of Ganja which were kept in three packets from unknown person and later they were coming towards RL Nagar, Rampally. On 16.02.2018, from 16.00 hours onwards the LW-6 along with LWs-1 to 3 have been conducting vehicle checking near Sathyanarayana colony bus stop and found the accused coming on a Suzki motorcycle bearing No.TS-09-EN-2103 from Rampally cross road side, the LW-6 stopped the accused No.1 to 3 and during search, found the accused are in possession of 550 grams of ganja in three packets. Then LW-7 secured presence of Lws- 4 and 5 and before them recorded confession statements of accused and seized ganja and motorcycle under cover of panchanama and also drawn 5 grams of ganja as a sample and sent the same to expert .

Page 3 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

for analysis and report. Thus the accused No.1 to 3 committed an offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

2.b.Basing on the contents of panchanama of accused,

LW-7/Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2018 under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. During course of investigation, LW-7 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 to

3. On 20.02.2018, the sample of Ganja sent to the FSL for analysis.

LW-6 analyzed the sample material object and issued report vide

No.NAR/451/2018 and opined that sample sent for analysis is Ganja a narcotic drug. On 16.05.2018 Accused No.3 died, due to which case is abated against him.

3.The charge sheet has been taken on file by the Court under

Section 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act against accused No.1 to 3.

Subsequently, on appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of the

Charge Sheet and other documents relied upon by prosecution are furnished to accused No.1 and 2 as per section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. by explaining accusation and particulars of the offence alleged under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, charges are framed under Section 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, read over and explained to accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

.

Page 4 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs-1 to

PW-4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they denied and not proposed any defence on their behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6.Now the Point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7.In this case, accused No.1 and 2 were charged for the offence, punishable under section 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Before analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, the evidence of all witnesses are discussed in detail as under for better appreciation of evidence.

8.a. PW-1 who is eye witness, deposed that on 16.02.2018 at 4.00 pm when he along with Ch.Seenu, 421/LW3 and Inspector of .

Page 5 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

Keesara/LW7 were performing vehicle checking at Satyanarayana

Colony bus stop. A Suzuki Motor vehicle bearing number TS-09-TN- 2103 coming from Rampally and on suspicion they stopped the vehicle for checking. On checking they found Ganja in plastic cover.

Thereafter, in the presence of panchas, Inspector of police seized the

Ganja. On interrogation, Accused No.1 to 3 revealed their names and they revealed that they bought Ganja from Dhulpet and they are addicted to it. Accused No. to 3 further revealed that they are also selling to others. They seized 200 grams Ganja and Rs.2,000/- and one Suzuki motor vehicle bearing No.TS-09-EN-2103 from Accused

No.1 and 200 Grams Ganja and 7,000/- from Accused No.2 and 150

Grams of Ganja and Rs.3,600/- from Accused No.3 and the same are seized in the presence of panchas and brought to PS. Witness identified the Accused No.l and 2 present in the court.

8.b. During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he went to the spot along with Home guard on motor vehicle but he does not know the registration number of vehicle. After roll call, he along with Home guard went to the patrolling duty. Whenever they used to go for patrolling duty, the same is to be enter in General Diary. He has not made any entry in GD regarding vehicle checking duty.

8.c. PW-1 further deposed that LW7 informed him to attend vehicle checking duty. LW7 went to the spot at 3.30 PM. He has not mentioned in his 161 statement that inspector of police informed in .

Page 6 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

the PS to send him for vehicle checking duty and LW7 informed him.

They started vehicle checking at 3.30 PM at Satyanarayana Colony bus stop. Generally they used to attend vehicle checking duty for 2-3 hours. On that day also they attended vehicle checking duty for 2-3 hours. Generally during vehicle checking they used enquire about

RC, Pollution, Driving License and Insurance of the vehicle and if any challans pending on the vehicle. He can not say the exact time when they stopped accused No.1 to 3 for vehicle checking. He can not say how many vehicles are checked by them in a day. He can not say exact number of vehicles seized and fine imposed by them during the vehicle checking. On that day they conducted scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of panchas of near by locality. He can say the exact time when they conducted scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Their writer scribed the scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure panchanama, he has not filed complaint in this case against Accused

No.1 to 3. He has not stated in his 161 statement the names of panchas and he denied the other suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

9.a. PW-2 deposed that on 16.02.2018 MRO, Keesara called him and directed him to act as panch witness in the above case. On the instructions of MRO, he went to Keesara police station and found 3 persons in the custody of police, he enquired with 3 persons who .

Page 7 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

were in the custody in the police and the police recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Upon enquiry the persons informed him that their names are Sai Kiran, Karthik Reddy and

Karunakar Reddy. They confessed that on 16.02.2018 they have procured the Ganja from Dhoolpet and thereafter they were proceeding at Rampally X-road and police apprehended them at

Rampally Chowrasta and seized Ganja from them. Police seized 200 grams of Ganja from first person/Sai Kiran and seized 150 grams of

Ganja from second person/Karthik Reddy and seized 200 grams from third person/Karunakar Reddy and police took their signatures and affixed chits having their signatures on seized contraband. Along with his LW5/P.Yadagiri was present at the time of conducting confession- cum-seizure panchanama under Ex.P1. MO-1 is the contraband seized from the possession of Accused No.1. MO-2 is the contraband seized from the possession of Accused No.2. MO-3 is the contraband seized from the possession of Accused No.3. He can identified the accused persons. Witness identified the accused No.1 who is present in the open court.

9.b. During cross examination, PW-2 deposed that he is working as

Junior Assistant in education department since 2002 to till date. He worked in Revenue department as VRO till August, 2002. Upon the oral instructions of MOR at 3.58pm and he went Keesara police .

Page 8 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

station at 4.00 pm. He cannot recall the nae of MRO who instructed him to come to Keesara police Station. He cannot recall the day on which he went to police station, but it was 16.02.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.P1 and he admitted that month and year is mentioned in first paragraph of Rx.P1, but date3d is not mentioned in Ex.P1. It takes two minutes for reaching police station from his office. LW5/P.Yadagiri also came to police station along with him.

He admitted that LW5/P.Yadagiri was worked as VRO at

Dammaiguda Village. They are assigned with field work. When they reached police station A1 to A3 were in lockup at police station. In that particular lockup only A1 to A3 were present. It is true police has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that he can identify the accused persons

A1 to A3 if he see them again. Before deposing the evidence, he has gone through the police file pertaining to this case. It is true he has stated in his chief-examination that police has seized 200 gms of

Ganja from A1, 150 gms from A2 and remaining 200 gms from A3 basing on Ex.P1 which he has gone through before deposing evidence

before the court. He came to know about the name of accused

persons after going through the confession cum seizure panchanam.

He stood as panch in other cases also. Police used to call him to stood as panch witness in other cases also. He denied the other suggestions put by the learned counsel for accused.

.

Page 9 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

10.a. PW-3 deposed that on 16.02.2018 at about 1600 hours while he was conducting vehicle checking duty along with staff LW1 to LW3 at

Satyanarayana Colony bus stop, Nagaram. He found Accused No.1 to 3 moving in a suspicious manner on motor cycle bearing No.TS-09-EN- 2103 proceeding towards Rampally. He stopped Accused No.1 to 3 and on checking he found 3 plastic packets containing Ganja from the possession of Accused No.1 to 3. On enquiry accused persons disclosed that the same was purchased from unknown persons at

Dhoolpet. He secure the presence of two panch witnesses PW2 and

LW5/P.Yadagiri and conducted detailed confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 3 at scene of offence. As part of confession-cum-seizure he seized 200 grams of Ganja, Rs.2,000/- and one bike from the possession of Accused No.l and 150 grms of

Ganja and Rs.7,000/- from the possession of Accused No.2 and 200 grams of Ganja, Rs.3,600/- from the possession of Accused No.3 and drafted the confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of panchas and obtained accused persons signatures. After the confession he apprehended the accused No1 to 3 and brought to the police station along with the seized property and registered a case in crime No.51/2018 and issued FIR/Ex.P2 U/s.8 (c), r/w 20-B of NDPS

Act. During the course of investigation, he examined recorded the statement of PW1, LW2/N Chinnaiah and LW3/Ch.Srinu. Thereafter on 17.02.2018, he produced the Accused No.1 to 3 before this court for judicial remand. He sent the samples of seized contraband to FSL .

Page 10 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

through ACP, Kushaiguda. Upon transfer, he handed over the C.D file to LW8/J.Narender Goud for further investigation.

10.b. During cross examination, PW-3 deposed that in column No.3 of FIR the date of occurrence of offence is mentioned as 16.02.2018 at 17.00 hours. He has not particularly mentioned in his charge sheet that he caught hold the accused persons at 17.00 hours. He has not received any prior credible information about the accused. He brought the accused persons Accused No.1 to 3 at police station at 1930 hours. On the same day at 17.10 hours he sent requisition to

Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal through patrolling constable to secure panch witnesses. He has not specifically mentioned in the charge sheet through whom and by what time he sent the requisition to

Tahsildar, Keesara. He secured the presence of panch witnesses at 17.30 hours. The Tahsildar office is 10 K.M away from the scene of offence. He has not received any written reply from Tahsildar office stating that they have sent panch witnesses. He added that he received oral intimation from Tahsildar office that they have sent panch witnesses. He has not mentioned that he received oral intimation from Tahsildar office that they sent panch witnesses. He has sent the requisition to Tahsildar office in writing. He has not filed the said requisition before this court. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that panchas came to the scene of offence at 17 :30 hours.

.

Page 11 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

10.c. PW-3 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama at 18.00 hours. He has not mentioned time of conclusion of confession- cum- seizure panchanama in charge sheet or Ex.P1. Approximately it took one hour to conclude the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The date is kept blank and not mentioned in the 5th line of confession- cum-seizure panchanama. He has not filed any

G.D entry before this court to show that on the date of incident he along with PW1, LW2 and LW3 were doing vehicle checking duty. He has not filed the vehicle checking register before this court to show that how many vehicles they checked on the date of incident. He has not examined any neighbouring witnesses of the scene of offence in this case. He has not filed any documents pertaining to the vehicle which he seized from the possession of the accused No.1. He has not mentioned the denomination of the seized money from the possession of accused persons and he denied the other suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

11.a.PW-4 deposed that on 27.02.2019 upon his transfer as

SHO, Keesara he took up the investigation. During the course of investigaton, he collected the FSL report from LW-6/V.R.Gunasheela.

He deposited the case property before this court. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet along with documents and case property.

.

Page 12 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

11.b.During cross examination, he deposed that after verifying the investigation done by PW-3, he filed charge sheet. He does not know the details of receiving information by PW-3 about illegal possession of ganja by accused. No neighbouring witness of scene of offence was examined or cited as witness in this case during his course of investigation. The distance between Rampally cross road and police station, Keesara is around 10. KM and he dined the other suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-

12.In this case, PW-1 deposed that on 16-02-2018 at 4:00 Pm, when he along with LW3/Ch. Srinu and Inspector of police keesara/LW-7 were performing vehicle checking duty and they seized 200 grams Ganja and Rs 2000/- and one Suzuki motor vehicle bearing number TS 09 EN 2103 from A1 and 200 Grams Ganja and 7000/- from A2 and 150 Grams of Ganja and Rs 3600/- from A3 and the same are seized in the presence of panchas and brought them to police station. PW-3 also deposed on the same lines as deposed by

PW-1. Therefore as per the testimony of PW-1, they conducted confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex P1 at scene of offence in presence of panch witness/PW-2 and thereafter they apprehended the accused persons and brought them to police station. However testimony of PW-2 who is panch witness discloses that police .

Page 13 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

conducted confession cum seizure panchnama/Ex. P1 at police station. Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 are not in consonance with the testimony of PW-2. If really police has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in presence of PW-2 at scene of offence, he would have deposed the same.

13. Further PW-3 deposed in his cross examination that he brought the accused persons at police station at 19:30 hours and secured the presence of panchas/PW-2 at 17:30 hours. However PW-2 deposed that he went to police station at 4:00 Pm. Perusal of heading of Ex P1 reflects that panchnama was conducted on 16-02-2018 at 18:00 hours at scene of offence but, date of conducting confession cum seizure panchanma is not mentioned in the contents of Ex P1 and it is kept blank which raises doubt in the mind of this court regarding authenticityof conductingofconfession-cum-seizure panchanama/Ex.P1 in the presence of PW-2. Further as discussed supra, as the testimony of PW-1 and PW3 are not in consonance with PW-2 and Ex-P1.

14. There are several contradictions with respect to conducting of confession cum seizure panchnama, which creates reasonable doubt as whether PW-3 conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-2. The doubt as raised in the evidence of prosecution is reasonable and fatal to the case of prosecution.

.

Page 14 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

Therefore, the recovery of contraband from the possession of accused persons has not been proved Adding to the above, it is further observed from the record that investigation officer who is examined as PW-3, after effecting arrest of accused persons and seizing all the contraband, he failed to comply the steps contemplated under

Section 57 of NDPS Act by informing the factum of seizure of contraband and arrest of the accused to the immediate superior officer. No reason stated by the prosecution witnesses more particularly by the investigation officer/PW-3 for not submitting the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to his immediate superior officer.

15. The provisions under Section 57 of NDPS Act is enacted with an intention to see that the contraband seized under the Act is free from any doubt as to contraband being planted and accused being falsely implicated. Therefore, for non submitting report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act by the investigating officer also creates doubt in the mind of court regarding the case of prosecution. Therefore, the investigation is done on proper lines cannot be asserted due to the discrepancies as stated above.

16. In the decision reported in Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

decided on 16 th August, 2018 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011, his Lordships held that “a fair investigation, which is the very foundation of fair trial, .

Page 15 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person.”

17. In decision Bala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 18 th

March, 1993 of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal

Appeal No.52 of 1992 Lordships stated in para No.53 of order in

Kabul @ Khudia v. State bearing S.B.Cr.Appeal No.65/89 decided on 8-11-1990 reported in 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 183 it has been observed that in order to avoid any mischief by the Investigating Officer and in order to see that a fair investigation is done, the provisions of Sec.42, 55 and 57 have been made in the legislation. Non-compliance of several provisions of the Act create doubt and suspicion in the fairness of the investigation. When doubt is with regard to mandatory provisions, then benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

18. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohanlal’s case, it was held that:

15. It is manifest from Section 52-A (2) include (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the

Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the

Inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.

16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered, .

Page 16 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the

Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of

permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to the certified by him to be correct.

17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the

Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so

especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure”22.

19. Further, the observations of Lordships in the above cited cases that because of variation between the prosecution version and evidence of independent witnesses as to the conducting of panchanama, the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused as claimed by the prosecution is doubtful can apply to the case at hand.Therefore, the act of PW-4 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by the this court in the case of Mohanlal. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband.

.

Page 17 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

20. Hence, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicious and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused.

21. In the result, the Accused 1 and Accused No. 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and unmarked property cash of Rs.2,000/-,

Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,600/- seized from the accused No.1 to 3 respectively shall be confiscated to the State and unmarked motorcycle bearing No.TS-09-EN-2013 which was seized from accused No.1 shall be returned to the owner on proper application, identification and due acknowledgment and shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period, if no appeal is preferred.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 17 th day of

April, 2025.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-DEFENCE:-

PW-1 : Lodangi Papaiah - None - .

Page 18 of 18

CC No.1523 of 2020

Date: 17.04.2025

PW-2 : Karrevula Sriramulu PW-3 : V.R.Gunasheela PW-4 : J.Narender Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : FSL Report

DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

MO-1: Contraband seized from the possession of accused No.1 MO-2: Contraband seized from the possession of accused No.2 MO-3: Contraband seized from the possession of accused No.3

DEFENCE:-Nil-

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda .

Page 1 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA III Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.46 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Keesara, Rachakonda. ….Complainant. A N D

1. Appadurai Dhanpal, W/o.Appadurai, Aged 55 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.H.No.53/2017, Subramanya Colony, Perambu, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

2. Sarikonda Srinivasa Raju, S/o.Subba Raju, Aged 50 years, Occupation: Herbal Soap Business, R/o.H.No.304, Tanmai Residency, Road No.1, Buddha Nagar, Boduppal.

3. Nellepally Prabhakar Reddy, S/o.Eshwar Reddy, Aged 49 years, R/o.H.No.1-50, Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Meerpet, N/o.Charvakanipalle village, Penumur Village Chittore District, A.P.

4. Nakka Prakash, S/o.Raja Mouli, aged 30 years, Occupation: Vegetable and Real Estate Business, R/o.H.No.2-7-52/12, Tenuguvada, Peddapalli District.

5. Nakka Sathish, S/o.Raja Mouli, Aged 36 years, Occupation: Vegatable and Real Estate Business, R/o.H.No.2-7-52/12, Tenuguvada, Peddapalli District.

6. Bachu Ram Chander, S/o.Narayana, aged 52 years, Occupation: Electricity Department., R/o.Reddy Colony, Gandhi Chowk, Kiryalaguda, Nalgonda District, N/o.Keshavapur village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Page 2 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

7. Samala Ramakrishna, S/o.Penchalaiah, Aged 25 years, Occupaton: Tailor, R/o.H.No.18-57, Shanthi Nagar Colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Ditrict, N/o. Yerrabelli Village, Nedamanur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

8. Katta Penchala Prasad, S/o.Penchalaiah, Aged 25 years, Occupation: Record Assistant, Irregation Department, R/o.H.No.D/2005, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Nagar, Nalgonda District.

9. Kavadi Krishna Reddy, S/o.Yadagiri Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occupation: Real Estate Business,R/o.H.No.6-19, Avushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District.

10. Nakka Mallikharjun, S/o.Yadagiri, aged 37 years, Occupation: Driver, R/o.H.No.1-14, Phase-II, Gayatri Nagar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad District, N/o.Peddapur Village, Veldanda Mandal, Nagar-Kurnool District. ….Accused

This case came before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri P.V.N

Kiran Kumar , and Smt. Ganga Bhavani Advocate for Accused No.1

and B.Suresh Goud, Advocates for accused No.2,3,4,5,8,9 and 10

and Sri.P.Srinivasulu Advocate for accused No.6 & 7 upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, P.S.Keesara has filed Charge Sheet in

Crime No.417of 2017 against the above named accused persons for the offences under Section 420, 511 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

2.a.On 09.11.2017, LW1/L.Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police,

Keesara received credible information that some persons are about to

Page 3 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

exchange the fake currency notes in a form-house situated in

Yadagiripalli Village outskirts, upon which police Keesara along with panch witnesses went to Katepally Bal Reddy formhouse, there police found accused No.1 to 10 gathered in a room and upon enquiry, the accused confessed and the accused No.1 showed a demo for making fake notes to accused No.2 and 3, who in turn explained about their plan and demo to accused No.4 to 10 who also joined and decided to cheat the innocent public by exchanging the fake currency notes by receiving original notes from them, upon which police Keesara recorded their confession and seized an amount of Rs.8,10,000/-, 10 mobile phones, electrical equipemnts, iron box, key board UV light, Iodine tincher bottle, gum bottle, colour water, one Swift Dzire car bearing

No.TS-07EB-1323, one Hyundai Eon car bearing, some black coloured stickers under cover of panchanama in the presence of two panch witnesses and arrested the accused No.1 to 10.

2.b.Basing on the said complaint, on 09.11.2017 the LW- 8/M.Surender/Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No417of 2017 under Section 420, 511 r/w 109 of IPC and entrusted the investigationtoLW-8/R.Ravi/InspectorofPolice,the

LW-8/R.Ravi/Inspector of police examined and recorded the statement

Page 4 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

of LWs 1 to 5 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

3.The above charge sheet has been taken on file under Section 420, 511 r/w 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 10. On appearance of

Accused persons, copies of documents under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure are furnished to them, on which the prosecution is relying and thereafter the Accused No.1 to 10 were examined under

Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation and particulars of offence alleged Sections 420, 511 r/w 109 of IPC, charges are framed under under Section 420, 511 r/w 109 of the IPC against the Accused

No.1 to 10, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW-1 to PW-7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO10 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 10 were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language to which they denied and not proposed any defence on their behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

Page 5 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

5. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 10 for the offence punishable under Sections 420,

511 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

6.In this case, Accused No.1 to 10 are charged for the offence under section 420, 511 r/w 109 of IPC. To prove the above said charges against the Accused, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to PW-7 and

Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO10 were marked. PW1 is the complainant,

PW-2 to PW-5 are circumstantial witnesses and PW-6 is confession cum seizure panchanam and PW-7 is the investigation officer. Before appreciating and analyzing the evidence of witnesses, the evidence of all the witnesses are discussed in detail as under for better appreciation of evidence.

7.PW-1 deposed that on 09.11.2017 at about 1800 hours he received credible information regarding exchange of fake currency at

Yadagaripally village limits. Basing on the information as per the directions of inspector, he secured the panchas and reached the

Yadagaripally village, Katepally Balreddy form house and they found 10 members in the room and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized Rs.8,10,000/-, 2 cars and 10 cell phones.

Page 6 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

During course of cross examination, he admitted that the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- which he has seized was not fake currency notes and that are original currency. Further he denied the other suggestions put by learned counsel for accused.

8.PW-2, who was Head Constable deposed that on 29.09.2017 while he was on patrolling duty along with PW3 and PW4 in the Keesara area limits and at around 6.00pm he received information from their

S.I/Ravi Kumar and upon the instructions of S.I of P.S Keesara he along with PW3, PW4 and S.I Ravi Kumar went to Yadgaripally Village,

Katapally Balreddy farm house along with two panchas and found that one person by name Dhanpal /A1 was distributing duplicate currency notes illegally to about 10 persons who were present there by saying that A1 will provide double the amount of original currency notes in return for distribution of duplicate currency notes illegally in the public.

He along with S.I/Ravi Kumar and PW3 & PW4 apprehended the accused from the spot along with property i.e., 1. Rs.8,10,000/- of cash,

2. cell phones (10 in Nos). 3. Colour bottles, 4. Black stickers , 5. one swift Dzire car 6. one Hundai EUO car and seized the above property from the scene of offence and brought A1 to A10 to the police station and produced before to the SHO. He identified A9 who is present in

Page 7 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

the court hall that he was apprehended on date of incident from the scene of offence.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that he found fake currency notes and he denied other suggestions put by learned counsel

for accused.

9.PW-3 who was Home Guard deposed that on 09.11.2017 at about 9.00am when he was on the patrolling duty along with PW2, upon the instructions of S.I, P.S Keesara he along with PW4 and S.I/Ravi Kumar went to the Kattepally Balreddy farm house and found that A1 was there along with 10 other persons and A1 was distributing duplicate currency notes to 10 persons who were present on the spot by saying that A1 will provide the double amount of original currency notes in exchange of distribution of duplicate currency notes. They apprehended the persons present at the spot and seized Rs.8,10,000/- of cash, 10 cell phones, two vehicles out of which one is swift Dzire, Iron box, key boards, black stickers and brought A1 to A10 to police station.

He identified the accused No.9 and identified A2 as A1/B.Dhanpal.

During his cross-examination he elicited that they received phone call from police station while they were on protocol duty. Balakrishna

PC.No.3032/PW2 attended that call. Police written panchanama at

Page 8 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

scene of offence. He denied the other suggestions put by learned counsel for accused.

10.PW-4 who was Home Guard, deposed that on 09.11.2017 when he along with PW1 to 3 were on the patrolling duty upon the instructions of S.I, P.S Keesara he along with PW1 to 3 and S.I/Ravi

Kumar went to the Kattepally Balreddy farm house and found that A1 was there along with 10 other persons by names Srinivas Raju,

Prabhakar Reddy, Prasad, Satish, Ramakrishna, V.Mallesh, Krishna

Reddy, Mallikarjun are present and A1 was distributing duplicate currency notes to 10 persons who were present on the spot by saying that A1 will provide the double amount of original currency notes in exchange of distribution of duplicate currency notes in public. They have apprehended the persons present at the spot and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama at spot and seized Rs.8,10,000/- of cash, 10 cell phones, UV light, Gum bottle, colour bottles, Iron box, key boards one swift car bearing No.TS07EB 1323 and Hundai car and brought A1 to A10 to police station. He stated that he can identify

Dhanpal, but he cannot identify other persons. He identified A2 as A1.

During his cross-examination he admitted that they have not taken any articles from the spot and he denied the other suggestions put by learned counsel for accused.

Page 9 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

11.PW5 deposed that he does not know anything about the case.

Police did not examine him and not recorded his statement.

12.PW6, who is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that on the instructions of police he signed on some papers and he does not know the contents of that papers.

13.PW7, who is the Investigation Officer deposed that on 09.11.2017 at about 10.30pm LW8/M. Surender, Inspector of police received a complaint from PW1 and registered a case in crime No.417/2017

U/s.420, 511 r/w 109 of IPC and registered a FIR. and investigation entrusted to him. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW5. On the same day PW1 apprehended A1 to A10 and produced before him along with seized property. On 10.11.2017 he produced A1 to A10 before this Hon'ble court for judicial remand. On 13.11.2017 he deposited the seized case property before this Hon'ble court. On 20.11.2017 after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case. The following are the case property recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

MO1 is the bulb along with wire (electric equipment). MO2 is the key board. MO3 is the Black box. MO4 is the Iron box. MO5 is the 10

Empty water bottles. MO6 is the Gum bottle. MO7 is Engine oil bottle.

MO8 is the empty water bottle. MO9 is the black tape (stickers).

Page 10 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

MO10 is One Nokia phone. The amount mentioned in Form 60, serial

No.13 an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. No.16 an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-, No.18 an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, No.20 an amount of

Rs.50,000/-, No.22 an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- total amounting

Rs.8,10,000/-. (Rs.8,10,000/- was deposited as FDR in advocate mutual aided cooperative society, and the same is deposited with PJCJ

Court).

14.During his cross-examination, he elicited that it is true there are some corrections in the complaint/Ex.P1 and at the bottom of complaint there is some correction pertaining to section r/w 109. At the time of conducting panchanama three persons were present i.e., PW1 to

PW3. It is true PW1 and PW2 stated in their 161 Cr.PC statement that panchanama was written in their presence and it is mentioned in the confession cum seizure panchanama that the same is typed on a laptop with assistance of PC No.4181 of Keesara police station. He admitted that they have not recovered any fake currency notes from the possession of the accused persons. As per the investigation and charge sheet PW1 to PW3 were present at the time of conducting confession cum seizure panchanama and he has not examined PC No.4181 of PS

Keesara in this case. Further he admitted that he has not filed any

Page 11 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

documents to show that the scene of offence where the incident occurred belongs to PW5. He denied the other suggestions.

15.Now coming to appreciation of evidence, it is pertinent here to refer section 420 of IPC which reads as follows:

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property —Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code are:

(i) Deception of any persons;

(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or

(iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.”

16.The case of prosecution is that on 09-11-2017, police Keesara received credible information that some persons are about to exchange the fake notes currency in a farm house situated at Yadagiripalli village outskirts and they along with panch witnesses went to said place and found A1 to A10 in a room and police conducted confession cum seizure

Page 12 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

panchnama in presence of panch witnesses and seized 8 lakhs and 10 thousand rupees, 10 cell phones, electric thing, Iron box, key board, UV lights, Iodine tinchar bottle, Gum bottle, Colour stone bottle, Swift desire car B.No. TS07EB1323, Hyundai EON car and black colour stickers and brought them to PS.

17.PW-1 deposed that on 09.11.2017 at about 1800 hours he received credible information regarding exchange of fake currency at

Yadagaripally village limits. Basing on the information as per the directions of inspector, he secured the panchas and reached the

Yadagaripally viliage, Katepally Balreddy farm house and they found 10 members in the room and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized Rs.8,10,000/-, 2 cars and 10 cell phones. PW-2 also deposed on the same lines by stating that upon receiving information they went to scene of offence and found that one person by name Dhanpal /Al was distributing duplicate currency notes illegally to about 10 persons who were present there by saying that he will provide double the amount of original currency notes in return to the distribution of duplicate currency notes illegally in the public and they seized Rs.8,10,000/- of cash, cell phones (10 in Nos), Colour bottles,

Black stickers, one swift Dzire car, one Hundai EUO carto. PW-3 and

PW-4 also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-2 and

Page 13 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

supported the version of PW-2. PW- 2 and Pw-3 indentified only accused No. 9 but PW-3 and PW-4 failed to identify Accused No. 1.

18.Though prosecution relied upon Confession cum seizure panchnama/Ex. P5, however the panch witnesses to confession cum seizure panchnama did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore the recovery of seized articles from the possession of accused persons has not been proved. Further Police seized a total amount of Rs.

8,10,000/- from the possession of accused persons but PW-1 and PW7 admitted that such currency is not fake currency notes rather that are original currency notes.

19.As discussed supra receiving of property from the possession of accused persons has not been proved. Further no fake currency is seized from the possession of accused persons. Therefore, nothing came on record to show that accused persons made exchanging fake currency notes in order circulate in public. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons were involved in exchanging fake currency notes.

20.In view of above discussion the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of Accused No. 1 to 10 for the offence under Section 420 and 511 r/w 109 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accused No. 1

Page 14 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

to 10 are entitled for benefit of doubt which leads of acquittal.

Accordingly, this point is answered accordingly.

21.Consequently prosecution failed to prove offence under sections 420 and 511 read with 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 10.

Hence Accused No.1 to 10 are entitled for benefit of doubt which leads of acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

22. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 511 r/w 109 of Indian Penal

Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The

MO-1 to MO-10 shall destroyed after expiry of appeal time and amount of Rs.8,10,000/- seized from the accused No.4,5,6,7,8 shall be returned to them in following manner. Rs.1,30,000/- to be returned to A4 and

Rs.1,00,000/- to A5, 2,40,000/- to A6 and Rs.50,000/- to A7 and

Rs.2,90,000/- to A8 after expiry of appeal time, if no appeal is preferred.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 22 nd day of April, 2024.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda

Page 15 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

PW-1 : L.Ravi Kumar -None- PW-2 : B.Balakrishna PW-3 : Anjaiah PW-4 : T.Narsing Rao PW-5 : K.Balreddy PW-6 : G.Parusharam PW-7 : R.Ravi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint

Ex.P2: is 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5

Ex.P3: is signature of PW-6 on confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P4: is First Information Report

Ex.P5: Confession cum seizure panchanama.

DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION

MO1 : Bulb along with wire (electric equipment).

MO2 : Key board.

MO3 : Black box.

MO4 : Iron box.

MO5 : 10 Empty water bottles.

MO6 : Gum bottle.

Page 16 of 16

CC No. 46 of 2018

Date: 22.04.2024

MO7 : Engine oil bottle.

MO8 : Empty water bottle.

MO9 : Black tape (stickers).

MO10 : One Nokia phone

DEFENCE:-Nil-

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda

Page 1 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.63 OF 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Keesara, Rachakonda. ….Complainant. A N D

Md.Ajaz, S/o. Md.Sardar, Age: 36 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.43-336, Bharathnagar, Moulali, Medchal (Driver of the TATA lorry bearing registration No.AP-29-TB-0069). ….Accused

This case came before me on 11.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Murali, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, P.S.Keesara has filed Charge Sheet in

Crime No.472 of 2018 against the above named accused for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

2.a.On 14.11.2018 at 9.00 hours, the de-facto complainant/LW- 1/Jatosh Devi lodged a complaint with Police Keesara stating that on .

Page 2 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

14.11.2018 in the early morning hours, her husband Ramesh and his co-worker Krishna were proceeding to Dammaiguda from his home on his Dawasaki Boxer Bike at about 6-30 hours and when he reached Divya NSH hospital at Venkateswara Colony, Dammaiguda

Road, the driver of TATA lorry bearing No.AP-29-TB-0069 drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner and dashed the said motor cycle from rear side, due to which, he fell down on the road and lorry passed over Ramesh’s head, due to which, he died on the spot. The pillion rider Krishna received simple injuries. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

2.b.Basing on the report, LW-12/B.Prakash, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.472 of 2018 under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code and entrusted the investigation to

LW-13/A.Ravinder Reddy. During the course of investigation, LW- 13/A.Ravinder Reddy visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW-6/Md.Pasha and LW-7/Naganuri

Shravan Kumar and visited Gandhi hospital and conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of LW-8/M.Venkanna and

LW-9/Tenneti Steven and also issued section 41-A Cr,P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code.

.

Page 3 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

3.The above charge sheet has been taken on file by the Court under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

Subsequently, on appearance of accused, copies of the Charge Sheet and other documents are furnished to accused as per section 207 of

Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 251 of

Cr.P.C. by explaining accusation and particulars of the offence alleged under Section 304-A of IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs-1 to

PW-9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he denied and not proposed any defence on his behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6.Now the Point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

.

Page 4 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

7.In this case, accused is charged for the offence, punishable under section 304-A of IPC. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6. Before analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, the evidence of all witnesses are discussed in detail as under for better appreciation of evidence.

8.PW-1 who is complainant and wife of deceased/J.Ramesh, deposed that on 14.11.2018 at about 6.30 am, while his husband was going to work on his bike along with PW3 when they reached near Dammaiguda, one Lorry came from back side and hit the bike, due to which, her husband and PW3 fell down and the tire of the lorry ran over the head of her husband, due to which, he died on the spot. PW3 sustained injuries and he informed her over phone about the accident. During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that on her instructions police scribed her complaint. She came to know about the accident through PW-3 and she denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused.

9.PW-2 who is the witness, deposed that on 14.11.2018 at about 06.30 am while he was in his shop, he heard a loud noise in front of the shop and he immediately came out and saw that an accident occurred in front of the hospital situated beside his shop. He found that one lorry ran over the head of one person in the accident and .

Page 5 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

that person succumbed to the head injury. He enquired about the accident with the people standing near the place of the accident and he came to know that the lorry driver hit to the bike from back side, due to which, two persons on the bike fell down and the lorry ran over the head of one person and other person sustained minor injuries over his body. During cross examination, he deposed that he cannot read and write Telugu language. He does not know about the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement. He did not heard the sound. He did not witness the accident. As public gathered after the accident and after seeing the public, he went to the scene of offence.

10.a.PW-3 who is eye witness, who deposed that deceased was his brother-in-law and PW1 is wife of deceased. On 14.11.2018 at about 6.30 am he along with the deceased were going on work to

Dammaiguda on his Suzuki bike. The deceased was riding the bike.

When they reached near Divya hospital, Dammaiguda, one 12 wheeler lorry hit their bike from back side, due to which, they fell down and the lorry ran over the head of his brother-in-law/deceased, due to which, he succumbed to injuries and he received minor injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Dharani hospital, Dammaiguda and immediately after the accident the person driving the lorry ran away from the spot.

.

Page 6 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

10.b.During cross examination, PW-3 deposed that he does not know the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement. Police did not examine him and not recorded his statement. He has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that the person driving the lorry ran away from the spot immediately after the accident. He does not know anything about the case and he denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused.

11. PW-4 deposed that deceased was his brother and PW1 is wife of deceased. On 14.11.2018 at about 6.30 am, PW3 along with the deceased were going on work to Dammaiguda on his Suzuki bike. The deceased was riding the bike. When they reached near Divya hospital,

Dammaiguda, one 12 wheeler lorry hit their bike from back side, due to which, they fell down and the lorry ran over the head of his brother/deceased, due to which, he succumbed to injuries and PW3 received minor injuries. Police examined him and recorded him statement. During cross examination, he deposed that he cannot read and write Telugu and English language. He does not know the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement. Police did not examine him and not recorded his statement. He does not know anything about the case and he denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused.

.

Page 7 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

12. PW-5 who is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, deposed that on 14.11.2018 at about 10.00 am, police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in presence of PW- 6 and they both signed on it. During cross examination, he deposed that he know the directions of scene of offence. On the left side of crime scene there is a ATM and right side there is a hospital. He cannot say the name of hospital and the name of bank whose ATM is installed at that place. He does not know the number of pages contain in Ex.P2. He does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and he denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused.

13. PW-6 who is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, deposed that on 14.11.2018 at about 10.00 am, police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in presence of PW- 6 and they both signed on it. During cross examination, he deposed that he went to the scene of offence as his friend Mohd. Pasha/PW5 called him to come to the scene of offence. He does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and he denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused.

14. PW-7 who is Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that on 30.11.2018, he has received requisition from Inspector of PS Keesara .

Page 8 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

and vehicle bearing number AP-29-TB-0069 brought to him for inspection. On the same day i.e., on 30.11.2018 at about 4.30 pm, he has inspected the vehicle and found no damages to the vehicle and he opined that the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. At the time of his inspection, the said vehicle was found without fitness certificate and without any driving license of accused and also issued VCR No.238814. After inspection, he issued MVI report under Ex.P3. During cross examination, he denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel

for the accused.

15. PW-8 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased, deposed that on 15.11.2018 at 13.35 hours she received the requisition of SHO PS Keesara, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Jatosh Ramesh and she commenced autopsy between 13.45 hours to 15.50 hours on same day, during the autopsy she found antimortum injuries mentioned in column No.9 in PME report. In her opinion, the cause of the death best of her knowledge and believe was due to crush head injury. Accordingly, she issued PME report under

Ex.P4. During cross examination, she denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

.

Page 9 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

16.a. PW-9 who is investigating officer, deposed that on 14.11.2018 at about 9-00 hours, LW-12/B.Prakash, Inspector of Police, PS

Keesara received a complaint from PW-1 and basing on the contents of the same, he registered FIR under Ex.P5 in crime No.472 of 2018 under section 304-A, 337 of IPC. During course of investigation, PW- 9 examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of PW5 and PW6 and he shifted the body of the deceased to

Gandhi hospital and conducted inquest panchanama/Ex.P6 at

Gandhi hospital mortuary in the presence of LW8/M.Venkanna and

LW9/T.Steven and handed over the dead body of deceased to PW8 for conducting autopsy and thereafter handed over dead body of deceased to relatives. Subsequently, he examined and the recorded statements of PW2 to PW4 and LW5/V.Ravi Naik. Thereafter, he sent the crime vehicle to PW7/MVI, Uppal for inspection. Later, he collected PME report and MVI report and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet along with documents.

16.b.During cross examination, PW-9 deposed that he does not know how many persons came to the police station at the time of lodging complaint in this case. He does not know who scribed the complaint. The time of accident is added in the complaint but he do .

Page 10 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

not know whether it was added later or not. He has not stated in charge sheet about the mode of securing the presence of panchas of scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama. The place of recording the statements of PW2 and LW5/V.Ravi Naik is not mentioned in their 161 Cr.P.C statements. There is date correction in

Ex.P4 and he denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-

17.The case of prosecution is that on 14.11.2018 at 06-30 hours, near Divya NSH Hospital at Venkateswara Colony, Dammaiguda

Road, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad, the accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the two wheeler Bajaj

Kawasaki due to which Jatoth Ramesh/deceased and PW3 fell down on the road and the accused ran his lorry over the head of

Deceased/Jatoth Ramesh and he died on the spot and PW-3 also sustained injuries.

18.In this case, PW-1 deposed that on 14.11.2018 at about 6.30 am while her husband/deceased was going to work on his bike along with PW-3 when they reached near Dammaiguda, one Lorry came from back side and hit the bike due to which his husband/deceased and PW-3 fell down and the tyre of the lorry ran over the head of her .

Page 11 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

husband/deceased due to which he died on the spot and PW-2 also sustained injuries. PW-2 and PW-4 also deposed on the same lines in their chief examination as deposed by PW-1 and the testimony of PW- 3 is also in consonance with testimony of PW-1.However, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 are not eyewitnesses to said accident as they did not witness the accident. Further during cross examination PW-2 and

PW-4 deposed that they do not know anytrhing about the case and did not support the case of prosecution. PW-3 who is eye witness of this accident deposed that person drving the lorry ran away from the spot immediately after the accident.

19. Further PW-5 and PW-6 deposed about conducting scene of offence panchanama in their presence. Further PW-7 to PW-9 are the official witnesses who deposed about their role in investigation. PW- 7 deposed about conducting of inspection of crime vehicle and issuance of Motor vehicle inspection report/Ex P3. PW-9 is the investigating officer who deposed about the investigation done by him and PW-8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issuance of PME report/Ex.P4.

20.The most important aspect for establishing the guilt under section 304-A of IPC is the identity of the Accused. Not one witness .

Page 12 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

has deposed that the Accused was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident and no witness has identified the accused as driver of crime vehicle who was present in the court hall. Therefore the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle has not been established in this case. Therefore this court opines that the identity of the

Accused as the driver of the crime vehicle has not been established.

21.Though Ex.P4 does show that it was the deceased who died due to crush head injury but there is no cogent evidence on record to show that it was the Accused who was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he caused the said accident or that the death of the deceased occurred due to a rash and negligent act of the

Accused. In the absence cogent evidence to establish the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle, the evidence of panch winesses for scene of offence panchana/PW-5 and PW-6, Motor Vehicle

Inspector/PW-7, investigating officer/PW-9 and Doctor/PW-8 are not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to deceased/ Jatoth Ramesh and due to rash and negligent driving of accused deceased/ Jatoth Ramesh sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries.

.

Page 13 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

22.In view of above discussion the prosecution has not been able to prove that the Accused committed this offence under Section 304-

A of IPC. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of Accused under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads of acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered accordingly.

23.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months so as to bind him to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred against the judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As seen from the record that no case property was deposited before this court.

Therefore, no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 16 th day of

April, 2025.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-DEFENCE:- .

Page 14 of 14

CC No.63 of 2019

Date: 16.04.2025

PW-1 :Jatoth Devi - None - PW-2 : Annapuraju Sudhakar PW-3 : Googulothu Krishna PW-4 : Jatoth Venkanna PW-5 : Md.Pasha PW-6 : Naganuri Shravan Kumar PW-7 : Suresh Reddy Mandadi PW-8 : Lavanya Kowsil PW-9 : A.Ravinder Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 : MVI Report Ex.P4: Post mortem examination report Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Inquest panchanama

DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-Nil-

DEFENCE:-Nil-

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Kushaiguda .

1 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT:SRI CHIRAG MEHTA III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum- III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(FAC) I AJCJ-CUM-I AJMFC

Medchal Malkajgiri District At::Kushaiguda

Monday, the 21st day of April, 2025

O.S. No. 513 of 202 4

Between:

1) Karne Mahesh S/o.Late K.Shankaraiah Aged: 56 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-41-23/5, Gayathri Nagar, Hanuman Temple, Moula-ali, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2) Karne Paramesh S/o.Late K.Shankaraiah Aged: 51 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-2-631/1, Gudimalkapur, Mandula Guda, VTC, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

3) Karne Ramesh S/o.Late K.Shankaraiah Aged: 56 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.9-14, Komuravelli Mandal, VTC, Komaravelli, Siddipet District.

4) Karne Kumar S/o.Late K.Shankaraiah Aged: 46 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-1-78/3/28A, 28B, Annapurna Colony, Meerpet, Mallapur, Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

5) Sunkari Nagamani D/o.Late K.Shankaraiah Aged: 42 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.3-9-7/3/A/1, Saradha Nagar, Ramanthapur, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

6) Karne Raju S/o.Late K.Shankaraiah Aged: 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.24-3/32, Vishnupuri Colony Extn, Near Radhakrishna Bhajan Mandir, Vishnupuri, Malkajgiri,

Medchal Malkajgiri District.…..PLAINTIFFS

AND

1) The Tahsildhar Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2) All Concerned …..DEFENDANTS

This Suit is coming on 07.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri J.Thirupathi Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendants

No.1 and 2 were remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivers the following

J U D G M E N T

1. This Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for the relief of declaration to declare the Plaintiffs No.1 to 6 as the Legal Heirs of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala who died on 17-01-2017 in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiffs filed the present plaint by stating that, the Plaintiffs

No.1 to 6 are the Children of deceased Smt.Karne Chandrakala who died intestate on 17.01.2017 leaving behind the Plaintiffs No.1 to 6 as her legal heirs. The Plaintiffs further stated that during the life time of

Smt.Karne Chandrakala, she purchased the Residential Plot bearing

Plot No.61/B in Survey Nos. 30, 31 and 33 admeasuring 150 Sq.Yards 3 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

situated at Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri

District (herein referred as Suit Schedule Property) by virtue of

Registered Sale Deed vide Doct.No.1210 of 2003 dated: 17-02-2003 registered before the S.R.O. Shamirpet. The Plaintiffs further stated that after death of the said Deceased Smt.Karne Chandrakala, the plaintiffs approached the Municipal Authorities for taking permission for construction of house in the Suit Schedule Property but the

Municipal Authorities denied the same and suggested to submit Legal

Heir Certificate. As such, the plaintiffs approached the defendant No.1 in the first week of March, 2024 to obtain Legal Heirs Certificate, but the defendant No.1 denied the same and advised them to approach

Competent Court. As such having no alternative, the plaintiffs filed this suit.

3) Summons served to defendants No.1. Inspite of service of summons to defendant No.1, he failed to appear before this Court. Hence, the defendant No.1 was set exparte on 10.07.2024. On the application of the plaintiffs, this Court ordered to issue a paper publication for defendant No.2, but none appeared before this court and no objections were received from any person. Hence, defendant No.2 was set-exparte on 20-01-2025.

4) During the course of plaintiffs’ evidence, Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13.

4 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

5) Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs.

6) Now the points for consideration is :

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as Legal

Heirs of Deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala as prayed for ?

2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as Legal

Heirs of Deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala in respect of

Suit Schedule Property ?

3. If so to what relief ?

POINT NO.1:

7) In order to substantiate their case, Plaintiff No.1 filed his Chief affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. The contents of his Chief

Examination is nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments and

Plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A13.

According to chief examination affidavit, the Plaintiff no.1 to 4 and

Plaintiff No.6 are the sons and Plaintiff No.5 is the daughter of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala who died on 17.01.2017 and deceased Sri Karne Shankaraiah who died on 28-09-2021 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her Legal Heirs. Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of

Sale Deed bearing Document No.1210/2003 dated: 07-02-2003,

Ex.A2 is the Death Certificate of Smt K.Chandrakala issued on 20-11- 2018, Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Market Valuation Certificate issued on 17-02-2024, Ex.A4 is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1,

Ex.A5 is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.2, Ex.A6 is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3, Ex.A7 is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.4, Ex.A8 is 5 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.5, Ex.A9 is the Aadhar Card of Plaintiff

No.6, Ex.A10 is the Aadhar Card of Deceased Smt K.Chandrakala,

Ex.A11 is the Aadhar Card of Deceased Sri Karne Shankaraiah,

Ex.A12 is the Death Certificate of Sri K.Shankaraiah issued on 11-11- 2021 and Ex.A13 is the PAN Card of the Plaintiff No.5.

8) Perusal of Ex.A1, reveals that the said Smt Karne Chandrakala purchased Plot Bearing Plot No.61/B admeasuring 150 Sq.Yards in

Survey Nos. 30, 31 and 33 situated at Nagaram Village and

Gramapanchayat, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Suit

Schedule Property) from K.Sowbagya Laxmi by virtue of Registered

Sale Deed vide Document No.1210 of 2003 registered before

S.R.O.Shamirpet, Ex.A3 is the Market Valuation Certificate of the said property. Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Smt Karne Chandrakala which shows that she died on 17-01-2017 and Ex.A12 is the Death

Certificate of Sri Karne Shankaraiah which shows that he died on 28-09-2021, Ex.A10 is the Aadhar Card of the deceased Smt Karne

Chandrakala in which her husband name is mentioned as Sri Karne

Shankaraiah, Therefore it stands proved that Late Smt. Karne

Chandrakala and Late Sri Karne Shankaraiah were wife and husband.

Exs.A4 to A7 and A9 are the Aadhar Cards of the plaintiff no.1 to 4 and 6 and Ex.A13 is Pan Card of Plaintiff No.5 in which their father name is mentioned as Sri Karne Shankaraiah. Therefore, it stands 6 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

proved that Plaintiffs No.1 to 4, 6 are the sons and plaintiff no.5 is the daughter of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala and Sri Karne

Shankaraiah. On perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1, A2 and Exs.A4 to A13 plaintiffs proved the death of Smt Karne Chandrakala on 17.01.2017 and also proved their relationship with the deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala.

9) Even otherwise also, since defendants No.1 and 2 are set exparte, the chief of PW-1 and Ex.A1 to A13, remained unchallenged. In view of unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A13, this court finds nothing to disbelieve the version of plaintiffs.

Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, it is proved that plaintiffs are the Legal Heirs of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala who died intestate on 17-01-2017 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.2:

10)The next relief which is sought for by the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as Legal Heirs of deceased Smt Karne

Chandrakala in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The question now is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as Legal Heirs of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala in respect of Suit Schedule 7 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

Property. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to section 34 of the

Specific Relief Act, which is extracted hereunder.

11)Here it is pertinent to go through Section 34 of the Act which reads thus:-

Section 34: Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right:

Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation- A trustee of property is a “ person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.

12)A plain reading of section 34 makes it abundantly clear that any person who is entitled to any legal character or to any right with respect to any property may institute a suit against any person who is denying his title to such character, or right by seeking the relief of declaration of his title. The cause of action for filing the suit for declaration of title arises only when the defendant denies the title to such charactor or right of the plaintiffs and thus plaintiffs are entitled to file a suit for declaration only on the basis of such cause of action.

13)In the instant case, the plaintiffs are totally silent about any such denial of title to such charactor or right of the plaintiffs by the defendants or any other person. In the absence of any specific 8 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

pleading or any iota of evidence showing that the title to such charactor or right of the plaintiff was either denied or disputed by the defendants or any other person or persons claiming through them, the other relief that the plaintiffs are entitiled to be declared as Legal

Heirs of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala in respect of Suit Schedule

Property as sought for by Plaintiffs are not maintainable in law and therefore, this court is not inclined to grant the same. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT NO.3:

14)In view of the findings in Point No.1, the Suit is partly decreed declaring only the Legal Status of Plaintiffs that they are Legal Heirs of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala.

15)IN THE RESULT, the Suit is partly decreed, without costs, declaring that Plaintiffs are Legal Heirs of deceased Smt Karne Chandrakala for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 21 st day of April, 2025.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) I AJCJ-CUM-I AJMFC

Medchal Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda 9 of 9

OS.No.513 of 2024

Date:21-04-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW1 Karne MaheshNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

1.Ex.A1Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.1210/2003 dated: 07-02-2003,

2.Ex.A2Death Certificate of Smt K.Chandrakala issued on 20-11-2028,

3.Ex.A3Certified Copy of Market Valuation Certificate issued on 17-02-2024,

4.Ex.A4Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1,

5.Ex.A5Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.2,

6.Ex.A6Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3,

7.Ex.A7Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.4,

8.Ex.A8Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.5

9.Ex.A9Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.6,

10.Ex.A10Aadhar Card of Deceased Smt K.Chandrakala,

11.Ex.A11Aadhar Card of Deceased Sri Karne Shankaraiah

12.Ex.A12Death Certificate of Sri K.Shankaraiah issued on 11-11-2021

13.Ex.A13PAN Card of the Plaintiff No.5.

For Defendants:-NIL-

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) I AJCJ-CUM-I AJMFC

Medchal Malkajgiri District At Kushaiguda

Page 1 of 5

OS.No. 31 of 2025

Date: 23.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-III

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT: SRI CHIRAG MEHTA III Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2025

O.S. No. 31 of 2025

Between:-

1. Smt. Mandha Yadamma, W/o.Late Mandha Venkataiah, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Housewife.

2. Mandha Shyam, S/o. Late Mandha Venkataiah, Aged about 29 years, Occupation: Pvt., Employee.

3. Mandha Yadagiri, S/o.Late Mandha Venkataiah, Aged about 24 years, Occupation: Student.

4. Mandha Renuka, D/o. Late Mandha Venkataiah, Aged about 22 years, Occupation: Student.

All are R/o.29-905, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District. … Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. All concern. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 07.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Md. Samadullah, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and 2 were remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

Page 2 of 5

OS.No. 31 of 2025

Date: 23.04.2025

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 as the legal heirs of deceased Mandha Venkataiah who died on 06.05.2019.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2a.The plaintiffs filed the present plaint by stating that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the sons and the plaintiff No.4 is the daughter of deceased Mandha Venkataiah who died on 06.05.2019 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

2.b. That the plaintiff No.1 approached Financial Institution for the purpose of

Education loan for plaintiffs No.3 & 4 and for well being of the family and for higher studies, as such the Financial Institution after due process and verification informed the plaintiff No.1 to produce the legal heir certificate.

2.c.The plaintiffs approached the defendant No.1 on 06.11.224 to obtain legal heir certificate, but defendant No.1 refused to issue legal heirs certificate and advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent court. As such, the plaintiffs filed this suit.

3.Summons served to defendant No.1 and on the application of the plaintiffs, this Court ordered to issue a paper publication for defendant No.2. Inspite of service of summons to defendants No.1 and after paper publication for defendant

No.2, none appeared before this court and no objections were received from any person. Hence, defendants No.1 and 2 were set-exparte on 18.02.2025.

Page 3 of 5

OS.No. 31 of 2025

Date: 23.04.2025

4. During the course of plaintiffs’ evidence, Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A5 got marked through PW1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the points for consideration is :

1. Whether the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Mandha Venkataiah as prayed for ?

2. If so to what relief ?

POINT NO.1:

7.In order to substantiate their case, plaintiffs No.2 filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. The contents of his chief examination is nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments and plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. According to chief examination affidavit, the plaintiff

No.1 is the wife, the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the sons and the plaintiff No.4 is the daughter of deceased Mandha Venkataiah who died on 06.05.2019 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Ex.A1 is the death certificate of Sri

Mandha Venkataiah issued on 31.07.2019. Ex.A2 is the Aadhar card of plaintiff

No.1. Ex.A3 is the Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A4 is Aadhar card of plaintiff No.3, Ex.A5 is the Aadhar card of plaintiff No.4.

8.Perusal of Ex.A1, reveals that Sri Mandha Venkataiah died on 06.05.2019,

Ex.A2 is the is the Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1, in which, her husband name is mentioned as Mandha Venkataiah, Ex.A3 to 5 are Aadhar cards of plaintiffs

Page 4 of 5

OS.No. 31 of 2025

Date: 23.04.2025

No.2, 3, and 4, in which, their father name is mentioned as Mandha Venkataiah.

Therefore, on perusal of Ex.A2 to A5, it stands proved that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the sons and plaintiff No.4 is the daughter of deceased Sri Mandha Venkataiah. On perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A5, plaintiffs proved the death of Sri

Mandha Venkataiah on 06.05.2025 and also proved their relationship with the

Mandha Venkataiah .

9.Even otherwise also, since defendants No.1 and 2 are set exparte, the chief of PW-1 and Ex.A1 to A5, remained unchallenged. In view of unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5, this court finds nothing to disbelieve the version of plaintiffs. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, it is proved that plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Mandha Venkataiah who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2:

10.In view of the findings in point No.1, the suit is decreed declaring only the legal status of plaintiffs that they are legal heirs of deceased Sri Mandha

Venkataiah .

Page 5 of 5

OS.No. 31 of 2025

Date: 23.04.2025

11.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed, without costs, declaring that plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Sri Mandha Venkataiah for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 23 rd day of April , 2025.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1: M.Shyam

FOR DEFENDANT

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1: Death certificate of Late Sri Mandha Venkataiah issued on 31.07.2019.

Ex.A2: Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A3: Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A4: Aadhar card of plaintiff No.3

Ex.A5: Aadhar card of plaintiff No.4

FOR DEFENDANT:- -NIL-

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Kushaiguda